The Fairey Battle: Luftwaffe Fodder

Originally envisioned as a successor to the Hawker Hart light bomber, the Air Ministry, in 1933, expressed a desire for a plane capable of accommodating two crew members, traveling 1,000 miles at 200mph, and bearing a 1,000lb bomb load.

The catch? They sought these features in a single-engine aircraft, a challenging prospect since no existing engine could deliver that performance at the time.

Yet, the Air Ministry went ahead with its ambition and released the specification P.27/32 in April 1933.

Fairey Aviation proposed multiple design options in response. The company’s leader, C.R. Fairey, was skeptical about the feasibility of the Air Ministry’s requirements.

Consequently, Fairey presented a series of alternative, more pragmatic designs, in addition to a model aligning more closely with the Air Ministry’s ambitious vision.

As fate would have it, the Air Ministry opted for the latter, granting Fairey a contract on 11 June 1934 to produce a prototype that adhered to their specifications.

Fairey Aviation’s Response

The resulting aircraft from the given specification showcased several contemporary features. Utilizing the stressed-skin construction method combined with a low-wing design, it bore a resemblance to an enlarged fighter plane.

Even though Fairey had been working on various aircraft engine models, none secured official endorsement. Consequently, the Battle was equipped with a solitary Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.

Its storage capacity allowed for four 250lb bombs within its bay, with space for two additional bombs under its wings.

The finished design housed a crew of three: the pilot and an air gunner/radio operator shared an elongated “glasshouse” cockpit, while the bomb aimer/observer lay at the base of the fuselage.

As for its defensive capabilities, the Battle was somewhat under-armed, featuring a single .303in Browning machine gun in its starboard wing.

There was also an option to incorporate a rear-firing Vickers “K” gun mounted behind the cockpit.

Design Features

Monoplane Configuration: A significant departure from the biplanes of the day, the Battle’s monoplane design represented a forward-thinking approach.

Monoplanes typically offered better aerodynamics and thus better speed and range compared to their biplane counterparts.

Engine: The heart of the Fairey Battle was its Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. This liquid-cooled V-12 engine would later achieve legendary status, powering iconic aircraft like the Supermarine Spitfire and the Hawker Hurricane.

In the Battle, the Merlin allowed for a top speed of over 250 mph.

Crew Arrangement: Originally envisioned as a two-seater, the final design of the Battle included provisions for a three-man crew: a pilot, a navigator who doubled as a bomb-aimer, and a wireless operator who also manned the machine gun in the rear. This arrangement was aimed at optimizing efficiency during operations.

All-Metal Construction: Moving away from the fabric-over-frame construction common to earlier aircraft, the Battle featured an all-metal structure, providing it with increased durability and strength.

Retractable Undercarriage: Further emphasizing its modern design, the Battle was equipped with a retractable undercarriage.

This not only improved aerodynamics but was also indicative of the advancements in aviation design of the period.

Armament: The Battle’s primary offensive capability was its bomb bay, designed to carry a significant bomb load for its size. Defensive armament was modest, with a single machine gun in the rear position.

Fairey Battle, its Maiden Flight

On 14 April 1937, the first production model of the Battle took to the skies. By the following month, No. 63 Squadron had the distinction of being the first RAF squadron to be equipped with this aircraft.

When war broke out, Battles were the primary aircraft for eight training squadrons in No. 6 Group and ten primary bomber squadrons in No. 1 Group, which was a part of the Advanced Air Striking Force.

On the brink of potential conflict, 2 September 1939 saw the ten Fairey Battle Squadrons of No. 1 Group relocate to France.

This move was in anticipation of a potential bombing assault on the Ruhr, but this action was contingent on a German-initiated bombing campaign in the west.

Since the Germans were not keen on antagonizing the western powers while their primary forces were occupied in Poland, the western front found itself in the tense lull often referred to as the “phoney war”.

First Victory in the Battle of Britain

In this time frame, the Battle was deployed for reconnaissance over the German front lines.

On 20 September 1939, an incident underscored its capabilities: a Fairey Battle from No. 88 Squadron downed a Messerschmitt Bf 109, marking the Battle’s claim to the first RAF victory of the war.

Nonetheless, the phoney war also exposed the Battle’s vulnerabilities. The aerial encounters of 1939-40 highlighted the susceptibility of bombers, like the Battle, when confronted by German fighter aircraft.

The Battle’s vulnerabilities were sadly highlighted with the onset of the German Blitzkrieg in the West.

In desperate low-altitude raids against the oncoming German forces, the Battle, while evading German fighters, faced greater threats from ground-based anti-aircraft and even infantry gunfire.

This grim reality was evident on 10 May 1940. On the inaugural day of the German onslaught, out of 32 Battles dispatched to confront the German advance, 13 were lost.

Victoria Cross

On 12 May, a group of five Battles from the 12 Squadron targeted two road bridges over the Albert Canal.

Four of these planes were brought down, while the remaining one crash-landed upon returning to base.

For their relentless effort in the face of intense defensive fire, Flying Officer Donald Garland and air observer/navigator Sergeant Thomas Gray from the Battle serial P2204 coded PH-K were posthumously awarded Victoria Crosses.

The third crew member, rear gunner Leading Aircraftsman Lawrence Reynolds, wasn’t included in the honor.

Battles faced a deadly combination of both enemy fighters and ground-based anti-aircraft defenses.

Even though Garland’s Battle succeeded in damaging one section of the bridge, the Germans promptly set up a pontoon bridge as a replacement.

During the initial stages of the Battle of Britain, the German Luftwaffe encountered a comparable predicament with their Junkers Ju 87 Stuka dive bomber facing substantial losses in a role akin to the Fairey Battle.

While there were exceptions with a handful of twin-engine designs like the de Havilland Mosquito, Bristol Beaufighter, and Douglas A-20 showing success, the mantle of low-level assault tasks largely shifted to single-engine fighter-bomber aircraft, including models like the Hawker Hurricane, Hawker Typhoon, and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt.

Fairey Battle the Grim Reality

On the 14th of May, recognizing the unsustainable losses from low-level raids, these attack strategies were halted. Initially, the revised tactics seemed promising—of the ten planes targeting the canal bridges that morning, all safely returned.

On that afternoon, in a critical bid to halt German troops from crossing the Meuse, the Advanced Air Striking Force initiated a full-scale assault with all accessible bombers targeting the German bridgehead and pontoon bridges at Sedan.

The light bombers faced overwhelming numbers of enemy fighters and suffered severe losses. From an attacking group comprised of 63 Battles and eight Bristol Blenheims, 40 aircraft, including 35 Battles, were downed.

Following these unsuccessful raids, the Battle shifted primarily to nighttime operations, which considerably reduced their losses.

For the subsequent month, as the RAF units in France reeled back due to the German onslaught, heavy casualties persisted. By 15 June 1940, the battered squadrons retreated to Britain.

The intense losses underscored the Battle’s limitations—it was neither swift enough for low-altitude maneuvers nor resilient against formidable fighter adversaries.

Upon returning to Britain, No.1 Group reconstituted, continuing to deploy the Battle. Alongside the rest of Bomber Command, No. 1 Group shifted away from daytime raids.

Night Raider

Most of the intact Battle squadrons were repurposed for night time assaults on German invasion vessels stationed in French and Dutch harbors. By the close of 1940, No. 1 Group had transitioned to using the Vickers Wellington.

The Battles equipped three squadrons designated for coastal patrol operations: Nos. 88 and 226 Squadrons operating from Belfast, and No. 98 Squadron based in Iceland.

Throughout much of 1941, these squadrons maintained their Battles. During this time, Coastal Command often utilized any available aircraft due to resource constraints.

Fight Trainer

In the Second World War, the Fairey Battle might have been deemed unsuitable as a bomber, but it found renewed purpose in its subsequent roles.

Repurposed as the Fairey Battle T, it was redesigned with a dual-cockpit layout replacing its original elongated canopy, serving as a training aircraft.

The Battle T boasted dual-controls inside the cockpit and, when used for bombing or gunnery training, could optionally be fitted with a Bristol-manufactured Type I gun turret.

Another variant, the winch-fitted Fairey Battle TT, was employed as a target-towing aircraft, aiding in aerial gunnery practice sessions.

Moreover, it wasn’t just the RAF that utilized the Battle in such capacities; several foreign entities also adopted the aircraft for training purposes.

Though the Battle was deemed unsuitable for front-line combat duties, its easy-to-handle nature made it a perfect candidate for engine testing.

The aircraft was employed to assess engines with capacities reaching up to 2,000 hp (1,500 kW), including notable ones like the Rolls-Royce Exe, Fairey Prince (H-16), and Napier Dagger.

Often, these evaluations were integral to the development of other aircraft, such as the Fairey Spearfish, and also to determine the efficiency and suitability of the tested engines.

Citation for Thomas Gray VC

 Flying Officer Garland was the pilot and Sergeant Gray the observer of the leading aircraft of a formation of five aircraft that attacked a bridge over the Albert Canal which had not been destroyed and was allowing the enemy to advance into Belgium. All the air crews of the squadron concerned volunteered for the operation and, after five crews had been selected by drawing lots, the attack was delivered at low altitude against this vital target. Orders were issued that this bridge was to be destroyed at all costs. As had been anticipated, exceptionally intense machine gun and anti-aircraft fire was encountered, and the bridge area was heavily protected by enemy fighters. In spite of this the formation successfully delivered a dive bombing attack from the lowest practicable altitude and British fighters in the vicinity reported that the target was obscured by the bombs bursting on it and in its vicinity. Only one aircraft returned from this mission out of the five concerned. The pilot of this aircraft reports that in addition to the extremely heavy anti-aircraft fire, through which our aircraft dived to attack the objective, they were also attacked by a large number of enemy fighters after they had released their bombs on the target. Much of the success of this vital operation must be attributed to the formation leader, Flying Officer Garland, and to the coolness and resource of Sergeant Gray, who navigated Flying Officer Garland’s aircraft under most difficult conditions in such a manner that the whole formation was able successfully to attack the target in spite of subsequent heavy losses. Flying Officer Garland and Sergeant Gray unfortunately failed to return from the mission. The London Gazette of 11 June 1940, Numb. 34870, p. 3516

Citation for Donald Edward Garland VC

Flying Officer Garland was the pilot and Sergeant Gray the observer of the leading aircraft of a formation of five aircraft that attacked a bridge over the Albert Canal which had not been destroyed and was allowing the enemy to advance into Belgium. All the air crews of the squadron concerned volunteered for the operation and, after five crews had been selected by drawing lots, the attack was delivered at low altitude against this vital target. Orders were issued that this bridge was to be destroyed at all costs. As had been anticipated, exceptionally intense machine gun and anti-aircraft fire was encountered, and the bridge area was heavily protected by enemy fighters. In spite of this the formation successfully delivered a dive bombing attack from the lowest practicable altitude and British fighters in the vicinity reported that the target was obscured by the bombs bursting on it and in its vicinity. Only one aircraft returned from this mission out of the five concerned. The pilot of this aircraft reports that in addition to the extremely heavy anti-aircraft fire, through which our aircraft dived to attack the objective, they were also attacked by a large number of enemy fighters after they had released their bombs on the target. Much of the success of this vital operation must be attributed to the formation leader, Flying Officer Garland, and to the coolness and resource of Sergeant Gray, who navigated Flying Officer Garland’s aircraft under most difficult conditions in such a manner that the whole formation was able successfully to attack the target in spite of subsequent heavy losses. Flying Officer Garland and Sergeant Gray unfortunately failed to return from the mission. The London Gazette of 11 June 1940, Numb. 34870, p. 3516.